Cases 51 - 60 of 223
DELL'AQUILA v. ARDEN RIVER DEVELOPMENT, INC. et al
as 2:2019cv01121
Defendant:
JOHN T. BURGER, ARDEN RIVER DEVELOPMENT, INC. and JOHN DOE
Plaintiff:
DAVID DELL'AQUILA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
LARSON TEXTS, INC. et al v. O'NEIL
as 1:2019cv00297
Plaintiff:
JILL LARSON, DEANNA LARSON, ROLAND LARSON and others
Defendant:
SCOTT O'NEIL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
CIRIGHT ONE, LLC v. OU et al
as 2:2019cv03720
Defendant:
GEORGE OU and LILLIBETH OU
Plaintiff:
CIRIGHT ONE, LLC
Nominal Defendant:
BINJI FINTECH, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
CONRAD v. BEDROSIAN et al
as 2:2019cv03197
Defendant:
JEFFREY FARBER, DAVID DRABIK, JOHN KOZLOWSKI and others
Plaintiff:
JOHN J. CONRAD
Nominal Defendant:
LANNETT COMPANY, INC.
ESTATE OF MARIE TOMEI v. TOMEI et al
as 2:2019cv03000
Defendant:
H&H MANUFACTURING CO., INC. and THOMAS R. TOMEI
Plaintiff:
ESTATE OF MARIE TOMEI
Petitioner:
VINCENT TOMEI
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Mao v. Pai
as 3:2019cv01466
Plaintiff:
Stephen A Mao
Defendant:
Sam Pai
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
SIEGEL v. GOLDSTEIN et al
as 2:2019cv02890
Defendant:
BRIAN SMITH, SAMER ABDELSAMIE, JOSEPH MULLIGAN and others
Plaintiff:
PHILIP T. SIEGEL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
MERCER et al v. ARAMARK CORPORATION
as 2:2019cv02762
Defendant:
ARAMARK CORPORATION
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL MERCER and LEO FORD
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
LEVIEN et al v. HIBU PLC et al
as 2:2019cv03239
Defendant:
TOBY RUFUS COPPEL, ROBERT CHARLES MICHAEL WIGLEY, ESTATE OF JOHN MICHAEL POCOCK and others
Plaintiff:
THOMAS LEVIEN and JAMES WESTHEAD
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
IN RE KRAFT HEINZ SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION
as 2:2019cv00549
Defendant:
JOHN C. POPE, ALEXANDRE VAN DAMME, GREGORY E. ABEL and others
Plaintiff:
VLADIMIR GUSINSKY REVOCABLE TRUST
Consolidated Plaintiff:
IAN GREEN, CHARLOTTE HAYS and STEPHEN SILVERMAN
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
